Description: ------------ If I have the following packages: package X requires "Foo_Bar", no recommended version requires Y package Y requires "Foo_Bar", recommended version 1.0.0 and Foo_Bar exists as both v1.0.0 and 1.0.1 on the channel server, then an attempt to install X via "pear install" results in a failure with the error: Duplicate package channel://whatever/Foo_Bar-1.0.1 found Duplicate package channel://whatever/Foo_Bar-1.0.0 found Now, ignoring the fact that I'm not sure a failure here is the right behaviour (arguably there is a separate bug here: installing either 1.0.0 or 1.0.1 would fully satisfy the deps in either case albeit requiring a warning), the reporting is unhelpful as it does not specify: a) which packages in the dependency chain required 1.0.0 and which required 1.0.1 b) whether those requirements were implicit or explicit. I would suggest that a better output would look something like this: Conflicting requirements for package "Foo_Bar": - X requires Foo_Bar; latest version in channel is 1.0.1 - Y requires Foo_Bar; recommended version is 1.0.0

Bug #13425 covers the "installing nothing is silly" case discussed above, but not the main body of this bug.